Castles & Crusades: Player's Handbook

[Geron Raveneye]

Looking at the C&C rules, I'd simply grab my AD&D 2E Player's Handbook and use the multiclass and dualclass rules from there if I was in need of a quick system. It's based on differing XP class tables, just like C&C, and works fine with C&C characters as far as I can see.

3E multiclassing would be harder to implement, as 3E assumes a certain level is worth exactly the same amount of XP across all classes, which simply isn't the case in C&C.

 

[Akrasia]

Myself, I think that the dual-class rules in CZ are fine, and would simply use them (and just not bother with 'multi-class' PCs at all, unless, as I've said, I had a small party.)

 

[Dragonhelm]

3E multiclassing would be harder to implement, as 3E assumes a certain level is worth exactly the same amount of XP across all classes, which simply isn't the case in C&C.

Oh, I don't know. You'd have to use the 3e XP chart, which is nice and handy. The problem comes in the form of figuring out how much XP to award.

Another route you could go would be to add the XP together for the next level from all your classes, then when your XP reaches that total, you advance in both at once. It's some slight math, but harkens back to the AD&D feel of multiclassing. Just add your BtH as you go, and you're shiny.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Just got my C&C PHB in from the ebay guy, and it's so brand new the pages still stick together a little bit, and you get that soft creaking sound of a book opened the first time. Aaaaaah, excitement!

From my first glance, it doesn't look too bad, layout-wise. Some of the special ability headers in the class descriptions could have been boldened, or italicized, to set them apart from the main body of text. The spell properties might have profited from getting their own lines of space instead of being tacked on to the descriptive text.

And what I view as very positive in layout, the text is rarely broken up by a table, there's no callouts or sidebars to divert your eyes from the main text. Maybe I'm simply an easily distracted guy, but those elements (used pretty often in the 3E books I own) simply make it very hard for me to sit down with a 3E rulebook and read it. The layout in the C&C PHB actually invites me to sit down and simply read it through. A big bonus for me.

Now I can't wait for the 2nd printing to hit the stores. maybe I'm lucky on ebay again then.

Edit: one thing I'm missing is an easily detachable character sheet..or at least one that can be copied out of the book. I know that's nothing in the age of downloadable, customizable character sheets, but it would have felt nice. Oh, and did I miss that rule about adding your level for class abilities only in the boxed rules, or is that new in the PHB?

 

[Akrasia]

... Oh, and did I miss that rule about adding your level for class abilities only in the boxed rules, or is that new in the PHB?

I'm pretty sure that that rule has always been there (but my box set is across the Atlantic right now).

 

[Geron Raveneye]

A monk with d12 HD? I'm kinda curious as to what reason is behind that decision, apart from the fact that fighting monks in the movies tend to suffer an ungodly amount of damage from their opponent's hands and still keep on fighting!

 

[MrFilthyIke]

A monk with d12 HD? I'm kinda curious as to what reason is behind that decision,

It's all that hard drinkin'!!

Oh, these aren't drunken monks??

Ah, then...no clue.

 

[radferth]

I'm thinking the monk d12 is to make them more durable in combat without giving them an ungodly armor class. It seems odd to me, but it has the effect of making them better vs. single opponents with a high attack bonus than multiple ones with poorer attacks (when compared to other classes). I guess I would assume that, especially in the monk's case, HP represent the ability to avoid being seriously wounded in combat rather than the raw capacity to suck up lots of damage.

 

[Treebore]

In case people are actually still reading this thread I just want to throw in a few $.02 comments.

Skills: Yes, you can port in systems from d20 or whatever. Or you can do what I am doing and use the SIEGE system and use a base of 12 for classes/races that I as the CK decide would make the character "familiar" with the skill, and use 18 for those I deem unfamiliar. I also factor in "ROLEplaying". If a player wants their character to have a specific skill, most commonly armor maker, weapon maker, bladcksmith, and herbalist, we work it out through roleplaying or character history if they want the character to start play with a definite and defined skill.

I am familiar with how long a lot of apprenticeships lasted in the old days, as well as journeyman status, etc..., so I use this knowledge to tell a player to add "x" months or years to their characters age when starting up new characters.

For skills they want to obtain after starting play they will actually have to take a "break" from adventuring that may last years. Which is the case with my current players. Fortunately they alll want to pick up skills that all require the same amount of time in which to do their apprenticeships.

I have also made them aware that a lot of time spent as an apprentice is simply to "pay" for the training they are receiving, so if they can actually pay gold their training time can be cut by half or more.

My players and I are happy with this, and it certainly helps make their characters much more "real".

BTW, apprenticeships give and additional +2 bonus to beating the TN of 12, Journeyman gives +3, and achieving Master level (which takes actual years of campaign time) will give a
+6, if a player ever actually tries to achieve Master.

So far we are greatly enjoying the "simplicity" of C&C versus 3E, but we all admit we will definitely return to playing 3E. Plus we all believe we will have a much more relaxed approach to playing 3E when we do get back to it.

Another realization/shocking revelation I have had about myself and D&D. All that house ruling I used to hate prior to 3e, I have come to find out I actually love/d it. As a DM it is what really made me feel "connected" to the game. Plus it is/was much easier than trying to figure out what TSR/WOTC meant/means with the new Feat, rules, what have you. I always understood what my group and I came up with for solutions.

That was a HUGE epiphany for me.

 

[Dragonhelm]

So far we are greatly enjoying the "simplicity" of C&C versus 3E, but we all admit we will definitely return to playing 3E. Plus we all believe we will have a much more relaxed approach to playing 3E when we do get back to it.

A while back, I was investigating the differences between C&C and D&D, and I had to admit that C&C was a breath of fresh air. It was so much more relaxed. That isn't to say that I don't miss some things from 3e.

If I could house rule a hybrid between the two, I'd be in heaven.

Another realization/shocking revelation I have had about myself and D&D. All that house ruling I used to hate prior to 3e, I have come to find out I actually love/d it. As a DM it is what really made me feel "connected" to the game. Plus it is/was much easier than trying to figure out what TSR/WOTC meant/means with the new Feat, rules, what have you. I always understood what my group and I came up with for solutions.

That was a HUGE epiphany for me.

Agreed. I found, when running D&D 3e, that it was a bit difficult for me simply because I already had a long-established DM'ing style. Some of the 3e rules have me scratching my head. While I understand the reasoning (typically game balance), I think some things went a bit too far (i.e. critical hits in 3e).